This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Binksternet.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

Hello! Your submission ofAl Garvey at theDid You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneathyour nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!BlueMoonset (talk)14:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please respond to the questions asked at the nomination page. I will recommend rejecting the nomination if not addressed.Flibirigit (talk)14:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for warning me about my slips, i'm new here and i admit that i didn't notice a couple stuff like if i was logged-in or not, but i wanna thank you for linkingthese pages so that i can understand better the way it works. But the revert you did onHeartbreak on a Full Moon was just remove wikilinks, Allmusic's sourced list of credits, correct sales indicated by Billboard, and other well sourced informations because of one "college paper source" out of 20 sources. If my edit was "not an improvement" as you said, yours was not an improvement too, to be frank it was quite the opposite. Anyways the college paper even has a wiki page, so i would consider it to be quite relevant, but this is not a mandatory thing, i get it. If the issue is about that one review let's discuss it on the talk page, beacuse to revert everything out of nowhere is unnecessary and harmful to the page. I'll wait youhere.

Thanks for your attention--TomMMYway.sixtime (talk)11:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I would've liked to have a discussion with you about it, but you prefered to do false accusations, that i bet you'll win since you're so powerful here. I think it's kinda sad, but at least now i know why you'reso loved, reallya lot. Guess God don't make mistakes and your bully and vandalic acts will be stopped one day. Only thing i was really disappointed is that you had no balls to discuss about the actual edit, chapeau to your pettiness.--TomMMYway.sixtime (talk)11:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

TomMMYway.sixtime is a sockpuppet of Giubbotto non ortodosso and has been blocked indefinitely.115.164.188.23 (talk)10:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Please comment if you have an opinion:Talk:Dream Ballet. --Ssilvers (talk)22:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe there may have been vandalism on this page by somebody you have recently warned and whose Talk Page seems to suggest they get a lot of warnings. Can you check please? Thanks.Rodericksilly (talk)00:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see it as block evasion.Binksternet (talk)01:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I was only improving the page putting the right information in.— Precedingunsigned comment added by82.10.37.178 (talk)02:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that a message you recently left to 46.97.170.78 may have been unduly harsh. Please remembernot to bite the newcomers. If you see others making acommon mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors.The edit warring template was warning is a bit nonsensical, there was no "repeatedly changing content back"User_talk:46.97.170.78 simply changed a small portion of what had been originally reverted, in an attempt to find a good edit. It was very clearly aWP:GOODFAITH edit.Nithin^talk00:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP is blacklisted by dnsbl.spfbl.net which indicates to me someone who is not new to Wikipedia.

For some reason, the toned-down (softer) version of the edit warring notice was not available by way of Twinkle drop-down menu. I would have used it.Binksternet (talk)16:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute. What exactly does "blacklisted" mean? I don't recall editing Wikipedia all that much in the past, especially not from the device I'm using now, and nobody else uses this device. I don't understand what's going on here.46.97.170.78 (talk)13:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles:Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review:Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

Hello, Binksternet. You have new messages atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Al Garvey.
Message added 00:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5^tccsdnew00:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As per usual this editor prefers to remain Anonymous. I have read much about this personage and his family. So any new editors will pretend that i am interfering: but i started the article and intended to finish it before you are adding the advice "Cite sources". i have to say as per usual in America there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. This means that you are telling me to be informed when you are lacking everything, including the knowledge about this page!!!! Perhaps if you spent less time on programming and actually read some History, you may know what i mean. The Photos i added to the page, were there when i first wrote the article, because i research and found the images, and then added them. The trajectory that you project is nothing whatsoever to do with Alexander Duff. So please DO NOT interfere, since i am going to expand the article and write the history and Wikify the article in my OWN TIME. THANK YOU. So please DO NOT interfere with edits because they are properly added and cited and researched. AND.— Precedingunsigned comment added by31.125.94.76 (talk)16:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you very much for your help onZombie (song)Oroborvs (talk)17:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! Thanks in turn for your vigilance.Binksternet (talk)22:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yo Bink, been a while. Hope the covid doesn't have you too down. What are your thoughts regarding Bandcamp as a source for a discography? An example can be seenhere.WP:ALBUMAVOID says to not use retail sites but do you think that applies in this case?Robvanvee08:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Bandcamp is where bands self-publish, so for guidance we look toWP:SELFPUB. Your linked example doesn't appear to violate the guideline as it is a case of bare and factual wording, not making extraordinary claims.Binksternet (talk)16:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the reply. My concern stems from the fact that some rather unknown band such as this one could add a plethora of fake albums, EP's & singles etc to their discography in a veiled attempt to boost notability. Just wondering if good faith is in order.Robvanvee09:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey just letting you know that any reasonable person would interpret your edit summary here[1] as homophobic. In the future please make your point without being so offensive, it harms the whole community.Horse Eye Jack (talk)16:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a big, beautiful world with lots of opinions in it. Even so, you're the first to think I'm homophobic. If that were true it would be quite a surprise to all my gay friends here in super liberal San Francisco Bay Area.

Perhaps what you're really seeing is casual language from someone who associates daily with gay men and women.Binksternet (talk)16:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the statement “Just a few _____” is pretty universally offensive when the subjects are victims of human rights abuse, primary rape, torture, and murder.Horse Eye Jack (talk)17:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The point I was making was that the issue is of very minor consequence as compared to the larger topic. It's peripheral at best.Binksternet (talk)17:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Next time try to make that point without being so offensive, it didn't add anything to your point. Also perhaps this is the last time you should use the “But I have gay friends!” defense, even when true it comes off as hollow and tone deaf. You have also yet to acknowledge that your original language was offensive which I find puzzling.Horse Eye Jack (talk)17:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop posting here.Binksternet (talk)18:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Will do, you are likewise asked not to post on my talk page. Have a wonderful Sunday.Horse Eye Jack (talk)18:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Binksternet. There is a discussion atWP:ANI regarding a persistent IP-hopping genre vandal in the 2804 range. Since you have dealt with this person/people extensively for years, any input you may have there would be appreciated. Thanks.Mungo Kitsch (talk)07:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for writing it up so neatly and getting the rangeblock to happen.Binksternet (talk)16:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please can you have a look at the edit history of this article, as a user appears to be using multiple accounts over a long period to change the date of birth year from that which is cited. Thanks.Rodericksilly (talk)16:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

That recent Spotify source might have a correction in it. I'll give it a listen.Binksternet (talk)16:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

...And it does. Hogarth says he was 64 recently, not 61.Binksternet (talk)16:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you add the genres for the albumCircles. There has been an editor who keep adding genres in the article and I wandering what are the sources explicitly says the genre of the album.TheAmazingPeanuts (talk)03:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian says explicitly that the album isemo-rap while Pitchfork says it is not exactly hip hop, implying that it is not exactly any genre. Neither source supportsthis edit which incorrectly lists elements and underlying themes as the main genres. I agree with your removals.Binksternet (talk)16:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So emo rap is the correct genre for the album according toThe Guardian, right?TheAmazingPeanuts (talk)19:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for the infobox, though the Pitchfork's ideas should be stated in prose, that the album does not easily fall into one genre.Binksternet (talk)00:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I added emo rap in the infobox but I needed some help added Pitchfork's ideas in the article prose.TheAmazingPeanuts (talk)03:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not do anything on[2]. I was fixing up the category. Why was it necessary to revert? And no, I was not starting an edit war, for your information.--70.173.17.198 (talk)21:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bink, I sent a reply to your e-mail on Nothing compares 2 U, hope you get it. I am not sure if this how to reply on here, the navigation and instructions on here are terrible,I rarely use wikipedia but here goes. Most of the detail in my update is verifiable on IMDBPro,I just tried to add in line citation to this effect ( hope it works) The other detail on dates, locations, creative talent and process etc. comes from me and is totally non-contentious, i.e this is my work and as producer I am recognised as author, creator of the video etc.( i.e. per the copyright designs and patents act) and the source is therefore my Creativo023 handle which I am also trying to add to the video page.I hope the detail is of interest to some of the 188 million viewers of the video to date. Hope this helps, Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byCreativo023 (talk •contribs)19:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a hard policy ofWP:No original research which means that you cannot publish something on Wikipedia that has not been published elsewhere before. Ideally, Wikipedia is a summary of the published literature on a topic.Binksternet (talk)22:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll find I provided A SOURCE. How about not being so heavy handed and authoritarian to people trying to make good contributions to the site. I cannot stand admins like you who go around threatening everyone who aren't even vandalising the pages. I clearly did not vandalise the page in any way and my intentions in my edit were clearly good as it provides factual information. I posted facts. It's true Vinnie Vincent photoshops his KISS pictures, you would know that if you actually looked at the source which is his own official website.94.175.64.92 (talk)01:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin.

I sawthis edit by you and I reverted it because it was full of conjecture. You posted a Vinnie Vincent party invitation graphic image[3] and then made a bunch of statements about what Vincent does with his makeup, including your guess that he does it "presumably for copyright reasons." If this kind of weak-ass edit is something you're going to defend strongly, you're in the wrong place.Binksternet (talk)04:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Was there anything disruptive in the anon's last editso it was reverted?Gleb95 (talk)19:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

The top part of the edit was what I saw and reverted. I was looking at the introduction of an internal link to "Past members" section, which is deprecated atWP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I would not have opposed the vanyaland andRolling Stone references had I looked down that far.Binksternet (talk)19:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Any reason you didn't restore them? Waiting for me I guess? I myself always try to retain the valid parts of edits when I do an undo. But you arebusy and have been for ages, so I can forgive 😉 — and thank you for the efforts. Regards. –░▒▓№∶72.234.220.38 (talk)22:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

HiBinksternet, your quick restoration of my other edits atMinistry is greatly appreciated. You're a real pro Wiki editor. 👍

I hope you have time for a quicktalk about this particular situation? I feel we have a sort of Wikipedia-style/policycatch-22 here. You certainly did show that policy for the introduction of an internal link to a "Past members" section is deprecated atWP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. My edit only copied the edit techniques I've seen on quite a few other band articles. I assume this will slowly be addressed somehow? You can see this being done at theDeep Purple orElectric Light Orchestra articles for example. One way I see editors trying to solve these ever growing infoboxes is to just create new articles specifically containing the long list of members and link to them from the infobox. You can see examples of this being done withExodus &Megadeth. We also have odd hybrids of these in an article such asList of Nine Inch Nails band members.

The catch-22 seems to be this: TheMoS for Infoboxes specifically states, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". I think you'd agree that having long lists of names, or any such items, goes against this "less is more effective" statement? Let me propose an example.Al Jourgensen states that all musicians that influence or have been influenced by Ministry should be considered "members of Ministry". If taken seriously, it would lead to an infobox that could look something akin to this:

   Over the top example

Ministry
Ministry atHellfest in 2017. From left to right: Al Jourgensen, Jason Christopher and Cesar Soto. Keyboardist John Bechdel is in the background.
Background information
Origin	Chicago,Illinois, U.S.
Genres	Industrial metal industrial rock alternative metal thrash metal synth-pop (early) new wave (early) EBM (early)
Years active	1981–2008 2011–present
Labels	Cleopatra Wax Trax! Situation Two Arista Sire Warner Bros. Sanctuary 13th Planet Megaforce Nuclear Blast
Members	Al Jourgensen John Bechdel Sin Quirin Cesar Soto Paul D'Amour London May
Past members	Chris Connelly Mark Baker Paul Barker Duane Buford Stephen George Zlatko Hukic John Monte Mark Pothier Paul Raven Bill Rieflin Mike Scaccia Louis Svitek Rey Washam Tommy Victor Aaron Rossi Roy Mayorga Thomas Holtgreve Jason Christopher DJ Swamp Tony Campos Terry Bones John Soroka Marilyn Manson Paul Wiley Juan Alderete Brandon Pertzborn Zsa Zsa Speck Olivia Newton Bundy Gidget Gein Sara Lee Lucas Daisy Berkowitz Zim Zum John 5 Madonna Wayne Gacy Tim Sköld Ginger Fish Chris Vrenna Fred Sablan Twiggy Ramirez Tyler Bates Gil Sharone Rob Zombie Sean Yseult Ena Kostabi Peter Landau Ivan de Prume Tim Jeffs Tom Five John Ricci Jay Yuenger Phil Buerstatte John Tempesta Robert Fripp Mel Collins Tony Levin Pat Mastelotto Gavin Harrison Jakko Jakszyk Jeremy Stacey Peter Sinfield Greg Lake Michael Giles Ian McDonald Gordon Haskell Andy McCulloch Ian Wallace Boz Burrell Bill Bruford John Wetton David Cross Jamie Muir Adrian Belew Trey Gunn Bill Rieflin
Website	ministryband.com

I do feel you'd agree that this over the top example shows how messy things could get. Very much against the MoS. Of course, taking all the member names and creating a new article is the path some have taken to solve this. That's fine I guess.

That said, may I propose a different solution that seems to satisfy both of the infobox policies? A cool, but little used, template called '''{{Collapsible list}}'''. It allows us to put larger lists of data info an infobox and to still not overload a reader which keeps with the MoS requirement to "allow readers to identify key facts at a glance." I made an example of that here:

   Possible solution example

Ministry
Ministry atHellfest in 2017. From left to right: Al Jourgensen, Jason Christopher and Cesar Soto. Keyboardist John Bechdel is in the background.
Background information
Origin	Chicago,Illinois, U.S.
Genres	Industrial metal industrial rock alternative metal thrash metal synth-pop (early) new wave (early) EBM (early)
Years active	1981–2008 2011–present
Labels	Cleopatra Wax Trax! Situation Two Arista Sire Warner Bros. Sanctuary 13th Planet Megaforce Nuclear Blast
Members	Al Jourgensen John Bechdel Sin Quirin Cesar Soto Paul D'Amour London May
Past members	Chris Connelly Mark Baker Paul Barker Duane Buford Stephen George Zlatko Hukic John Monte Mark Pothier Paul Raven Bill Rieflin Mike Scaccia Louis Svitek Rey Washam Tommy Victor Aaron Rossi Roy Mayorga Thomas Holtgreve Jason Christopher DJ Swamp Tony Campos Terry Bones John Soroka
Website	ministryband.com

It keeps the data in the infobox so one does not have to link into the article or to create a whole new article. It keeps the infobox within the "less is more" MoS requirement. It also allows a reader to, if they wish, quickly bring up the list without having to navigate away from the infobox. Your thoughts? Toobold? 😁 Regards. –░▒▓№∶72.234.220.38 (talk)10:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

Hi Binksternet, I just made an SPI report for the latest IP you reverted, and another one. I think I should probably add the following accounts too, just wondering what you think, is it them? The names aren't the usual variations of Chowkatsun (except probably Ckt20200428), and they didn't edit any Bee Gees. I'm still looking over the edits, but maybe you can see it easier than I can.

• Beyondfan2010 (talk ·contribs)
• Ckt20200428 (talk ·contribs)
• Beyond4ever (talk ·contribs)
• Aprayerforbeyond (talk ·contribs)
• Prayforwkk (talk ·contribs)

If you have a moment, please let me know what you think, thanks. --IamNotU (talk)17:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes, these all look suspicious, even the one with just two edits. Some are too old for checkuser which can only reach back three months.Binksternet (talk)00:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I added them to the report. I hadn't noticed the other one, Unnameduser522. One small thing, your comment gives the impression that that user had edited X Japan and Bee Gees, but I don't see it in their edit history. It does help with linking the IP editing about the Hong Kong Film Award though. Anyway we will see how it goes I guess, maybe a checkuser will take a look. Thanks again... --IamNotU (talk)02:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I just meant Bee Gees-related biographies such asMaurice Gibb, and X Japan-related biographies such asYoshiki. I hope I don't confuse the clerks and admins.Binksternet (talk)02:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me regarding the edit to the+_- article - I believe that at least part of the edit was supported by the existing citation. Please let me know what you think about this.RLP-170 (talk)12:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Which existing citation? I don't see any of them supporting an album genre of alternative rock.Binksternet (talk)15:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The citation from the AllMusic review next to the genre classification. The page in question places the album under the following genres: "Dream Pop, Space Rock, Indie Rock, Alternative Pop/Rock, Alternative/Indie Rock".RLP-170 (talk)16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, but we don't use the sidebar genres of AllMusic because they are unreliable. SeeWP:ALBUMAVOID.Binksternet (talk)16:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on that. Sorry for taking up your time!RLP-170 (talk)17:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, you reverted a change of mine earlier today - you're an experienced editor, so help me understand how this edit violates neutral point of view. I deleted some historical context because it seems apologist to suggest that Manstein's hatred of Jews was simply a product of his environment. Manstein is quoted in the same section openly advocating for the extermination of Jews - is the expectation that the article explain why someone would be calling for genocide?— Precedingunsigned comment added by212.17.36.229 (talk)02:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My concern was that a valid observation was being removed, one from a respected author. Benoît Lemay is a historian and professor at the Royal Military College of Canada.

If you can argue that Lemay's observation is an outlier, or that his viewpoint has been challenged, you might have some leverage in your wish to remove the paragraph. Also if a previous author has stated contradictory findings.

You should start a new discussion thread about it atTalk:Erich von Manstein, so that other interested parties can comment.Binksternet (talk)02:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Lemay's observation is not an outlier - that's the problem.

You could make the same statement about the prevalence of European antisemitism in the biography of any Nazi. It does nothing to explain why their attitudes became murderous.

It therefore reads more as rationalization than as presenting neutral context.

I could only argue that Lemay's point, taken in isolation, is misleadingly incomplete - I don't know if that warrants a discussion thread or is sufficient reason to make an edit.— Precedingunsigned comment added by212.17.36.229 (talk)09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Binksternet, I checked the original Benoît Lemay text and it doesn't actually align with the statements in the two sentences I highlighted. There's a bit on Prussian officer tradition, but nothing else in the cited pages (the whole chapter, in fact) supports that part of the article. I don't see anything in WP Policy about fidelity to primary material beyond "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article" so does this become a NPOV issue? What should happen next here?

The hard policy ofWP:Verifiability is the anvil upon which you can beat these words. A pillar of Wikipedia. If you go to the cited source and you don't see any support for what's written you can remove the offending text because of failed verification.Binksternet (talk)03:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I know that I was vandalising on Wikipedia in a period of recent periods because I was a new member and I was ignorant of most of its rules and my two accounts were blocked because of that and they have the right to that .. But when I knew the right rules and the way to write and put the resources in the best way I could try to help and add information even if it was Simple in its source and you did not allow that when you delete or remove everything I edit on any page (likeFake Plastic Trees and the song page I createdA Certain Romance) as if I have no right to write anything anymore without telling me even about the reason or what I am wrong with specifically with my full confidence that what I write with the sources I write is correct! .. Please sir I know I was vandalising on some pages in the past and got what I deserved and now I'm trying to do better so please help me or be a little lenient with me about editing or if you want to remove something I wrote because it's wrong that's ok but don't remove everything that's all..

No, I will not be "lenient".Wikipedia has a blocking policy which must be followed.

You have evaded your block so much that you are almost banned. (SeeWP:THREESTRIKES.)

There's only one way forward for you, and that is for you to follow the instructions atWikipedia:Standard offer. Wait six months with no edits at all, then ask to have your original accountUser:Tamer Gunner unblocked. That's it.

If you persist in making anonymous edits or sockpuppet edits I will persist in removing them perWP:EVADE. Very simple.Binksternet (talk)14:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Blisternet. I noticed you reverted someone else's edit of songwriter John Parker's name to John Lewis Parker, back to John Parker, on the track listing for Chicago 17 because it was "unsupported." I found support for the use of John Lewis Parker here,https://www.songwriteruniverse.com/kipner.htm. I'm not sure how to add this citation to the track listing, and I don't want to revert your reversion for fear of starting an edit war. Perhaps you could change it back and add this citation?Curious405 (talk)13:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That's enough to convince me.Binksternet (talk)13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet, I wanted to tell you something about your reversals.

Although the IPs were correcting some occupations and nationalities of African American artists,we agreed that we should not created a edit warrings; instead, Icorrectly ordered the occupations because one of them had played the guitar and was rapping one of they songs, in this case I would have improved the opening sentence in the biographical introduction of the article, but instead of leaving them like this, you decided to reverse them incorrectly if we have not come to an agreement with the articles that I have edited recently.

Oh, and aboutWyclef Jean, you know that I tried to remove the dual nationality in the opening sentence at the beginning but revising the edition histories again but you also reverted twice while updating the infobox by the way don't tell me that you found out much about the occupations of the artists that according to you ordered a sentence, because it does not seem to know.179.52.209.135 (talk)06:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet, that part of leaving my current reviews alone you did not understand and what you mean that my edits do not help if the IPs correctly updated the content.179.52.217.19 (talk)18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have reported your repeated vandalism of theKnights of Liberty pageDbdb (talk)17:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles:Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review:Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

Even if (s)he were really a sock like you claim, what makes you think you can just delete what they wrote?Notrium (talk)15:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I am working under the guidelineWP:EVADE. Any contribution by block-evading person can be removed.Binksternet (talk)15:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Please readWP:EVADE again: "However, in closed discussions, comments by blocked editors should not generally be reverted or struck through."Notrium (talk)15:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What closed discussions are there in which I struck out comments?Binksternet (talk)15:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me, I misunderstood what "closed" meant.

Anyway, the IP is not yet blocked, and is not making edits in the article space. I really don't think this looks good for you.Notrium (talk)15:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

So you think it "looks good" to enable the block evasion of Asdisis?Binksternet (talk)15:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

...And theWP:EVADE guideline does not differentiate between article space and talk space. If someone is blocked, they should not edit anywhere on Wikipedia except their own talk page, for the purpose of requesting to be unblocked. If that has been disabled due to repeated abuse, then their only option is to email the Wikimedia Foundation.Binksternet (talk)15:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you cancast aspersions against him, you should be able to assemble some evidence and go to SPI. This is justWP:HARASSMENT.Notrium (talk)15:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you see that listed as a requirement atWP:EVADE? No. And in any case, the SPI folks do not take cases involving only IP addresses.Binksternet (talk)15:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This whole thing is literally about you accusing them of being an Asdisis sock.User:Asdisis is (obviously) not an IP. (Maybe I'm still misunderstanding something, if so please enlighten me.)Notrium (talk)16:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am accusing a series of Croatian IPs of evading the block on Asdisis. I am accusing these IP editors of being the same person, of being Asdisis evading his block. There's a very long history of such block evasion, by exactly these kinds of IPs, on exactly these topics, in the same exact style.Binksternet (talk)16:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet I'm with you on this one, it is pretty clear what's going on. Notice that editor Notrium has gone on a rampage to remove Serbian from the lead on several articles (chiefly scientists), which, it seems to me, is due to ongoing RfC on Tesla. This is an older editor, familiar with Wiki rules.Sadkσ(talk is cheap)16:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sadko. They (Notrium) are removing Croatian as well again it seems in relation to their conflict on the Tesla talk page. Here is an[Example] of their edits. Also there have been other editors selective removing Croatian from the intro of articles which is quite problematic.OyMosby (talk)16:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko andOyMosby: You guys obviously have something againstMOS:ETHNICITY, if nothing else. If so, you should discuss that on the MOS talk page itself; instead of bashing on me.Notrium (talk)17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Notrium (talk)21:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I just spent way too much time reading through Asdisis' behavior, and I have to say I am beginning to understand how you and others would be very sensitive to him considering the horrifying level of disruption he caused at ANI and the Tesla pages. I still think my questions at ANI were valid, but I'll definitely have to review some of the IP contributions of your Asdisis list when I get more time.Notrium (talk)02:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I made my own user page for the first time. I hope people see it. And I hope I can make a difference and make Wikipedia a better place. I hope my contributions help. I wish we cited YouTube videos. Lots of them have valuable and valid information. You don't have to reply if you don't want to.The Lord of Falafel (talk)16:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you have recently made erroneous edits toKnights of Liberty andIndustrial Workers of the World. Your edits seem remarkably similar to subsequent edits byuser:JalenFolf. Wikipedia'spolicy on multiple accounts does not allow the use two accounts by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account beingblocked from editing. I have reported this for further investigation, particularly given the previous sockpuppet allegations against you.Dbdb (talk)01:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha! That's a hoot. If I was ever going to throw away my almost-thirteen-year career on Wikipedia, I would not choose a good-faith new KKK article as the medium.Binksternet (talk)01:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey , if you would look closely on Archive 12 and read through discussion made between IP adresses you already pointed that belong to Asdidis and his discussion with users there (including you) , you would see continous repetition of that one source that he is qouting from Rudolf Horvat book. Same thing right now is doing user Bilseric on recenet comments, that quote was already disproved numerous times from all RS, but by the persistance and the way of writing ,I think that Asdidis is still very much active in discussion . Thank you for reading [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity/Archive_12]] .178.9.202.230 (talk)19:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is enough of a connection, with someone using the same reference which somebody else used in previous arguments.Binksternet (talk)05:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point ,I am new here so I wasn't aware of extension of this argument (since 2007. ???),then I read through all 12 Archives and after you pointed out Asdidis I've noticed his involment in almost every Archive, I connected him with Bilseric through last RfC since some called him Asdidis and he didn't argued against it : "[If anything you are saying was true you would put a quote from the source. And please, dont be deceptive. This is a secondary source, and I don't need another secondary source to confirm what this one says. Bilseric (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It was true the declaration said that, but it is not true it happened. FkpCascais (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)So you say. If only you could write it down, publish and reference here. Bilseric (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Asdisis, your pretending of not seing evidence is becoming disruptive. I have no patience to add here the tons of sources that clearly say MF existed as separate aadministrative unit until 1881. Just Google "Military Frontier 1881" and see the tons of results. I already presented one strong source clearly saying MF had its own governament until 1881. That means it was not part of Croatia before that. The case ends there. FkpCascais (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)I'm pretty sure I wasn't expecting you to translate the whole book. I would expect a translation of as much of the text as you think would be required to support your claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Ok I will try to find time to translate a few pages, since I will add this source to Military Frontier artie. It's too hard to do it on this article, since there are too many people looking for any kind of objection , it seems to me. As I said, it's a simple edit which should get no opposition, but this isn't a normal article. Bilseric (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)] and also here where you were involved :"[ No, I didn't add any interpretation. I quoted a secondary source. You are making interpretations and you are all over the place. "All evidence says", "the word united from that one source clearly means not single land" , "I lack a second source to confirm what the first one says", "de facto separated cant mean de jure united". Bilseric (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Asdisis, in 1850 Croatia-Slavonia and Military Frontier kept being two separate administrative units for further more 31 years. So no, Tesla was not born neither lived in Croatia. Sorry, but case closed. I am out. FkpCascais (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Thank God. You are all over the place. Bilseric (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)And you are wasting the community's time. You should stop bothering people here, or face a block for disruption. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)]".178.9.202.230 (talk)14:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Moved fromUser talk:95.178.238.149.

There's two things I notice about the IP andWP:Long-term abuse/Asdisis:

1. Theironly edit deviates from Asdisis' supposed position of Croatian nationalism or something. He says that Croatia had the same citizenship as Hungary, but just used a different name for it.
2. Looking at the last six IPs from your WP:long page, 5 are from Zagreb, with one from Kutina(!). But this IP geolocates to Osijek.

As you already know, I am interested in your methods for choosing which IPs to target, especially in the Asdisises, as they are often found near my discussion. And please don't tell me you are deleting everything that geolocates to Croatia. If there are some issues with publicly revealing your methods, feel free to shoot me an email.Notrium (talk)21:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the connection tothis edit by a related IP, and based on that I reacted to the timing, placement and style of the recent edit by 95.178.238.149. I'm not evaluating their supposed position on Croatian nationalism as much as you think I am. More than that I would rather not say. I don't want to educate Asdisis by giving away too much information about my methods.Binksternet (talk)21:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware that one "related" IP geolocates to Osijek (95.178.238.149), and the other to Zagreb (95.178.231.190)? And, FWIW, I don't see stylistic similarities (the samples seem too small), although I don't claim to be any good at that. I really worry you're just silencing Croatian users en-masse.Notrium (talk)21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I've warnedUser:2601:647:5803:9630:4114:5AAE:5F53:2E2A but I'd rather not template the regulars. Please discuss the issues on the talk page: I note thatTalk:Lulu (singer) hasn't been edited for a year.Woody (talk)09:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm moving the constructive discussion just above this post to the talk page you indicate.Binksternet (talk)14:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your efforts atBruce Campbell. It's not helping that there are those users who seem to not get tired of going back and forth and taking advantage of pending changes protection. I just wonder if they are socks? Since they exhibit exactly the same behavior, should an SPI be opened?LSGH (talk) (contributions)04:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see note on your DYK review.Yoninah (talk)17:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello@Binksternet: Do you agree to rename the pageZombie (song) to: "Zombie (The Cranberries song)" ? The page is actually entitled "Zombie (song)", which does not instantly confirm that it is indeed a Cranberries' song. For people who don't know the song, itseems to belong to two bands, or more, while the page was created in 2004 for the band the Cranberries — it should be more clear and straight.Oroborvs (talk)21:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. What other song is so famous that it is confused with the one by the Cranberries?Binksternet (talk)21:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The song which should not be confused with the one of the Cranberries, which is an edgy lament about the long-running Irish-English conflict. Both are completely different.Oroborvs (talk)22:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cranberries orginal version is huge, enormous, gigantic, with more than a billion views on Youtube. There are several cover versions, one by Bad Wolves, one by Vic Mensa, andone by Icon Okee.

The Bad Wolves cover version is slightly changed in its lyrics but all the sources still describe it as a cover of the Cranberries song. It is not a completely different song.

Jamie T wrote a completely different song called Zombie. The Wikipedia article about it is atZombie (Jamie T song). Compared to the Cranberries song it is tiny. It has no video and it charted much lower on the UK charts, with nothing in other countries.

Fela Kuti included a song called "Zombie" on his 1977Zombie (album), but this song did not chart, even though it caused great anger and retribution in the Nigerian military.

If we ever write an article about the Fela Kuti song then maybe we should disambiguate all three songs, one beingZombie (Fela Kuti song), another beingZombie (Jamie T song), and finallyZombie (The Cranberries song). The problem with writing an article about the Fela Kuti song is that the whole album is known for the same reason as the song, so we only need one article to describe the album and the song both.

I don't think there is enough reason to change anything.Binksternet (talk)22:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I’m not sure if this is all because ofthe last few edits/exchange here? The editor seemed to think that putting the newly created Bad Wolves template was not appropriate because it’s a Cranberries song originally. I understood that it’s a Cranberries song, and I don’t believe putting the Bad Wolves template at the bottom would lead readers to believe otherwise. (The article is pretty clear about it being a cover, nor would any reasonable listener confuse it.) If there’s some guideline against “templates on cover versions of songs” or something, I’ll gladly relent, but if it’s just because of the belief that it’ll confuse readers into thinking it’s not the Cranberries song originally, no I don’t buy that argument.Sergecross73msg me15:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule against cover band templates at the bottom of song articles. Generally, footer navboxes are allowed on articles that are linked in the navbox, so in this case the Bad Wolves navbox should be represented on the Zombie song page.Binksternet (talk)15:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That was generally my understanding too.Sergecross73msg me15:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello@Binksternet:. The previous comments are not from me. As you know, Zombie was written by the Cranberries and they built their career with this title, they are the sole owners. You'll find on google what the Cranberries said on 30 January 2020 about the Bad Wolves' cover, they don't like it, due to an aggressive marketing plan and the whole story built around that when their cover was published... during the mourning of the O'Riordan family. They covered Rihanna and Post Malone recently, their covers are not bad, it's just that they use big songs as a marketing vehicle to attract people to their own metal songs, everyone understands it. Give credit to the songrwiters of the song—and deep relevance to the entirety of the original song—the page was created for them.Oroborvs (talk)21:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not on board with the shaming of Bad Wolves for seeking publicity. The fact that they were planning to have Dolores record the vocals with them[5] is enough credibillity for me to accept the cover version as legitimate despite the opinions of the Cranberries band. The fact that they gave a big pile of money to Dolores's family doesn't hurt. And even if I was mad as hell at Bad Wolves I would still acknowledge their song as a successful cover version of the Cranberries' "Zombie", earning a place on the page about the song.Binksternet (talk)21:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No one is trying to take credit away from The Cranberries for their song. I think you’re just misunderstanding Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.Sergecross73msg me12:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I never said to remove their cover from the page, and yes they earn a place on it.@Sergecross73: I understanding Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Facts and sources are indicated in: Basic information→Central description→Date of page creation 16:57, 18 March 2004. Songwriter (s): Dolores O'Riordan. Source of the Cranberries' statement:http://abcnewsradioonline.com/music-news/2020/1/30/cranberries-members-felt-bad-wolves-zombie-cover-was-release.html If Allen Kovac, ex-manager of the Cranberries told them to donate money to her children, does not make them the owner of the song. So yeah the title of this page is "Zombie (The Cranberries song)". Metal community know thatVext, the singer of Bad Wolves,punched a woman in the face (the wife ofDino Cazares) in public because he was mad at her husband and all it took was a cover from a recently deceased rockstar. The guy is now a hero because they had a song cover go famous because the Cranberries lead singer died, and on theVext's page he is qualified as being a victim of Cazares. As you are skilled editors and administrator and I don't want to annoy you too much, I was telling you the facts, and the sources, and you will decide for yourself.Oroborvs (talk)10:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m aware of the history, and its as stated above - Dolores liked the cover so much she offered to sing on it, but passed away before she could record her parts. Because they had her approval, Bad Wolves still released the cover, and it went platinum, making them famous, though some other Cranberries member later said they didn’t really approve. My confusion is to why we are discussing this at all, as it has no bearing whatsoever on your proposal to change the article name or keep the Bad Wolves template off the bottom of the Zombie song article. It’s not like anyone is attempting to rewrite the bands history or anything.Sergecross73msg me13:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not good. What you are trying to say by "failed verification" and why content removed for no reason being restored is "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material". Pay attention, and please readWP:DTTR.Naleksuh (talk)00:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

As a "regular", why are you questioning the phrase "failed verification"? I looked at your cited sources and found nothing to support your addition. Verification failed.Binksternet (talk)00:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are now referring to "my cited sources" and "my addition", when of course I was not even the author of that text, indicating that you are not paying attention to the edits made, leaving notices that may or may not have any use. Throwing out baby with bathwater hasn't even been mentioned either :DNaleksuh (talk)00:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You restored three sources removed by someone using an IP address in Venezuela. What I wanted to know was whether the removal was valid, or the restoration of the sources. When I was looking at the three cited sources, I didn't care who added them. I was simply looking for some support – any kind of support – for the idea that post-punk was a foundation of house music. I found none.

However, if you restore text you are taking responsibility for it. Me calling it yours is not out of line in that case.

If you would like to talk about the actual musical issues you should shift your attention toTalk:House music.Binksternet (talk)01:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Binksternet. I saw you removed my contribution about the Glee cover for "Flashdance... What a Feeling" for the reason that it "doesn't meet the high bar for inclusion." Considering this cover charted in the UK and the list includes an instrumental cover done by The Shadows that was an album cut, I'm wondering what makes the Glee cover "unimportant" in comparison. Any clarity you could provide here would be very appreciated.— Precedingunsigned comment added byChacharaizze (talk •contribs)

Tell me how I can verify that the Glee version of the song was a chart hit. I'm removing the Shadows version.Binksternet (talk)16:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It's verifiable on MusicVF, which I do believe has been sourced on many other music entries. (Link here:https://www.musicvf.com/songs.php?page=artist&artist=Irene+Cara&tab=songaswriterchartstab) If that's not an acceptable source, please let me know and I will find another.Chacharaizze (talk)15:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So the Glee version got to number 145 in the UK? In the US, that level of success would be a"Bubbling Under" chart achievement, which is to say, lower than Hot 100 and not worth mentioning. I'm not sure how it works in the UK. How often are three-digit chart results listed?Binksternet (talk)15:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like they've been counting the Top 200 since November of 1994, though some of the websites still compress it to 100.^[1] I'd say looking at it through the US view, that wouldn't be "worth mentioning." I appreciate you looking into it for me. I just want to make sure I understand what contributions I should be making.Chacharaizze (talk)15:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I put Glee back in. A chart is a chart.Binksternet (talk)16:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! We'll see how it goes.KJP1 (talk)23:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward!Binksternet (talk)23:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I need help with finding a reliable source to verify that “Purple Rain” was in fact an R&B album, namely AllMusic.203.219.20.135 (talk)05:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The first thing to know is that we don't consider the AllMusic sidebar genres reliable. They are often contradictory. SeeWP:ALBUMAVOID.

But AllMusic prose reviews are very good sources. ThePurple Rain review mentions a lot of genres and then winds up calling the album "rock & roll." It's our job to figure out whether a specific genre that he lists is a main genre or a minor element of musical style. The author,Stephen Thomas Erlewine, says that the songs are not conventional, and that album is full of Prince's "stylistic experiments". So it's a difficult album to categorize with simple labels.Binksternet (talk)13:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. This ip user has been also vandalizing articles on Polish Wikipedia. The last adress, which I have blocked recently is31.0.40.73, one day before he started vandalizing English Wikipedia. I believe that user from ips 31.0.X.X and 37.248.X.X is the same person. I have an eye on him.

Best regards.Cynko (talk)09:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet. You previously gave me a welcome after I edited the article for a Genesis album and so I wanted to ask if you could help me out with a user reverting two of my edits. I was wondering what issue there might be with my edits from your perspective. In this edit[6] I contributed a chart table and arranged pre-existing reviews alphabetically, and the user SolarFlash reverted me and asked "what was the point ?" I don't know why I was reverted for adding properly sourced content. In this edit[7] SolarFlash said that I added a "user-generated source", but I did not contribute any new sources besides charts and a certification. I arranged the existing reviews alphabetically and I wonder if SolarFlash saw this and thought I added one, but I did not. Can you help me? Thank you.1.43.96.157 (talk)16:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

SolarFlash is mistaken in the two links you posted here. In one, the removal of charts is wrong and your alphabetizing wasn't harmful. In the other, SolarFlash restored the problematic small font template to the infobox (which should not be present perMOS:SMALLFONT), restored incorrect capitalization to the genres field (which should have the first genre capitalized but not subsequent ones), and it again reverted your alphabetization which was not a problem.Binksternet (talk)16:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@1.43.96.157: I merely sort through discographies and look at the sources being used for reviews. Many of them appear to contain user-generated content, so I occasionally remove them. If you disagree, let me know, you don't need to go to other editors crying about it. Just revert it with a good edit summary and it's done. I'm no different than the majority of editors here, I strive to make constructive edits but mistakes can happen, and that's no reason to ask other editors to deal with me.SolarFlash^Discussion18:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:SolarFlash I already did let you know. You repeated your "mistake" several times on my talk page, accusing me of adding in the Daily Vault review source to articles when I did no such thing and ignoring me when I told you I only alphabetised pre-existing references. You also say I should just revert you. I did that for a different reason, and you accused me of edit warring for doing so. It doesn't look like I can revert you without you saying I'm edit warring and threatening to have me blocked for daring to do so. That's why I came "crying" to Binksternet to help deal with it.1.43.96.157 (talk)18:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, can you please comment on my user talk page or to SolarFlash directly? They are now accusing me on my talk page of having added cduniverse.com and dailyvault.com, although I did neither. They are also saying if I continued to "edit war", I will get blocked. But I explained myself and have done nothing wrong.1.43.96.157 (talk)16:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I have just noticed that in this edit[8] SolarFlash has removed content sourced toMetacritic as being "user-generated content". I am sure you're aware, unlike this editor, that publication scores fromBlender andQ on Metacritic are not user-generated. Would you be able to please maybe revert this and talk to SolarFlash about their strange edits?1.43.96.157 (talk)17:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That was reverted because it's attributed to Metacritic but the actual link is to a completely different source, popmatters.com. So my edit summary wasn't clear in that instance. Restore it if you'd like, but restore it correctly.SolarFlash^Discussion18:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No it's not. The "Metacritic" reference on that article points to the website for Metacritic. Yes, the Metacritic reference is also listed next to the PopMatters score to help verify it, but it is a separate reference. You can clearly see the "Metacritic" reference ends before the PopMatters reference begins. I will readd the content to the article, because if you click on the "Metacritic" reference name it clearly points to the Metacritic website which lists those publications reviewing the album. Binksternet can see this if they choose to review the edit toVapor Trails. Thanks.1.43.96.157 (talk)18:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet,

The personnel credits section ofhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean-Nós_Nua has been consistently vandalized by a user, most recently from this ip address 2600:387:a:9::91 and this one 2600:387:a:3::83 and this one 2600:1700:1260:bd40:702f:11a6:f4bc:78ae it seems to be the same user. I have made attempts at reverting user's changes.

The correct credits can be found herehttps://www.discogs.com/Sinéad-OConnor-Sean-Nós-Nua/master/51682 ( click on more images, and scroll to see a list of the correct personnel credits)

I have also discovered the same user has vandalized the personnel credits sections of all Sinead O'Connor album pages. The information on these pages is now completely unreliable.

Best Regards.Sallygenard— Precedingunsigned comment added bySallygenard (talk •contribs)09:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll start working to stop this vandal and to counteract their wrong facts.

Discogs is sometimes interesting to look at, but we don't use it as a reference, because users can change the facts. SeeWP:ALBUMAVOID.Binksternet (talk)17:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have reverted a bunch of the bad stuff and four rangeblocks were made to stop this person.Binksternet (talk)19:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. However, it seems this user has again continued to vandal these pages and revert your changes. I admire your patience. Bon courage!

Sally— Precedingunsigned comment added bySallygenard (talk •contribs)19:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Frustrating! I'll keep an eye on it. I think we are looking at a long-term abuse case, block evasion byUser:Verone66 using Texas IPs. He's currently blocked as the rangeSpecial:Contributions/2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:0/64. I'll see if we can get another rangeblock.Binksternet (talk)19:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Ebony and Irony"?Binksternet (talk)08:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am making this post here because I do not want to clutter the talk page.

On July 5, 2020 you made a condescending remark against me on the Falun Gong talk page: "here's another Falun Gong adherent pushing the official line of the religion." [[9]] You made this insult against me simply because I called out an issue ofUNDUE and voiced out against the constant ad hominem attacks hurled against the FG community and those sympathetic to this movement on that page.

Regardless of what my personal identity may be (which should be entirely immaterial to that discussion), this is a personal attack and an open act of religious hostility and discrimination, which should not be tolerated or condoned anywhere, not least on wikipedia, in the 21st century. Whether or not you agree with another's beliefs, everyone has a right to speak, and a right to exist on this internet space, as long as the rules are followed.

I am hereby requesting respectfully but firmly that you immediate post a retraction and apology on the Falun Gong talk, with respect to the above comment. I look forward to your prompt response.HollerithPunchCard (talk)14:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not retracting my comment. I see a lot of new editors such as yourself appear for the primary purpose of making Falun Gong articles as friendly as possible to Falun Gong. Your first edits were exactly that. I called it as I saw it.Binksternet (talk)14:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your insinuation that I'm operating a single purpose account is absolutely baseless. My editing history is publicly accessible:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/HollerithPunchCard&dir=prev&offset=20200628182946&target=HollerithPunchCard

If you read each of my edits you would know that I take every subject matter that I edit very seriously and I make substantive contributions towards those topics, instead of run-of-the-mill editing to boost an editing profile.

But that's not important. What is important is that you went well beyond accusing me of operating a single-purpose account. You specifically, condescending and publicly announced that I'm a Falun Gong practitioner, and sought to attack me on that basisHollerithPunchCard (talk)14:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking you. I was defending Bloodofox against your attack, where you say "Are you trying to defame me in this community of being a Falun Gong shill?"[10] Bloodofox was not defaming you, he was simply observing a similarity between your words and the Falun Gong's words. You ramped it up into "defame". I made my post to show that Bloodofox was not alone in his assessment of the similarity.Binksternet (talk)14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard: I can't see the need for all this outrage. Certainly your edits give the appearance of having aWP:COI. If you have any connection at all with Falun Gong, please declare that connection on your user page. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra(talk) 15:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)I will point out that sometimesWP:COI editors vigorously attack anyone who points out their conflict of interest. Hopefully, I'm just misreading you. --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: You went well beyond defending a fellow editor, or merely pointing out a similarity in viewpoint. You specifically announced publicly that I am a Falun Gong adherent and denigrated me on the basis. [[11]]

I do not intend to waste both our time repeating what you did, which would have been clear to any fair minded person. Let this be my final notice. Until you take remedial action, it is a wrong that awaits redress.HollerithPunchCard (talk)15:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Rather proves my point, no? --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra I have no conflict of interests if that's what you are concerned about, if I've not made it clear already in my previous edits in the related discussions. Btw, an accusation ofWP:COI was not the issue here, and never the issue that prompted this discussion. If it was a simple accusation ofWP:COI I wouldn't have been bothered half as muchHollerithPunchCard (talk)15:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The first comment by Bink was a personal attack as defined in theWP:NPA policy: "Using someone's [in this case, possibly imagined] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views."

The next part was pureMcCarthyism:"Are you now or have you ever been..."

A long editing history and lots of social capital doesn't given anyone the right to make personal attacks, engage in McCarthyite bullying, or dismiss people whose views they don't like. This is a community of people who volunteer their time to build useful things for the masses. That's why we're all here. Everything that wastes our efforts from doing that is by definition bad.Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk)06:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Now is a great time to reviewWikipedia:Single-purpose account.:bloodofox: (talk)09:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cleopatran Apocalypse Thank you for your comment. I am still waiting for remedial action from Bink for hisWP:NPA at this time, which he appears unwilling to take.

@Bloodofox: I feel compelled to respond. Bink's accusation made against me is clear, and I quote it in its precise language: "here's another Falun Gong adherent pushing the official line of the religion." [[12]]. This is neither an accusation ofWP:COI orWP:SPA. It is a comment directly targeted at my supposed personal identity and belief. And this comment is made in the context of the larger discussion in the Falun Gong talk page, where a few regular users consistently attack the Falun Gong community with hostile, derogatory and condescending remarks. Some among this group even go to the extent of accusing the community as being dangerous. See a recent example: [[13]]

You are walking back on Bink's attack against me andWP:GASLIGHTING the discussion. I'm trying hard to move on from this. But what I will not tolerate is people trying to put a blindfold on this incident, even as it awaits redress.HollerithPunchCard (talk)16:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion Bink, apologise for the comment having the appearance of/being perceived as a personal attack and the aggravation it caused and promise to be more careful in the future. Let's move on. Life's too short. --Deepfriedokra(talk)
  • Thanks for the suggestion. Of course I'm not absolutely certain that HPC is an adherent of Falun Gong, so that part of my accusation can only be considered an overstatement. But I retain my assessment of HPC's first few edits as revealing a pro-Falun Gong stance; a stance that has not since been disproved. And there continues to be a significant danger to the wiki of a coordinated effort by people eager to promote the official Falun Gong viewpoint. (I could list a hundred SPAs but that would be tiresome.) I think anyone who has shown a bias friendly toward official Falun Gong materials should not be allowed to participate fully, instead limited in the manner laid out atWP:COI such that they can suggest things on the talk page but cannot revert on the article page. Which is why I identified HPC the way I did.
  • HPC's other edits reveal an interest in legal proceedings. This talk page complaint against me has the nature of a court case being built. Of course I will resist being shut down.Binksternet (talk)16:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Thank you for trying to mediate this, Deepfriedokra. If Bink finds it difficult to apologize, I'm fine if he can just retract that comment with a strikethrough. I'm not after symbolic victory, neither do I take pleasure at another's humiliation. I'm not that kind of person. It's not what I'm after. Neither am I interested in shutting you down, Bink. I take seriously the claim, "I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it". Everyone has the right to speak, and it is precisely those espousing the unpopular/minority opinion whose right to speak needs to be vindicated. Because it is our attitude towards the unpopular/minority that distinguishes us from a autocracy or tyranny of the majority. I guess in a way that belief is what drove me to participate in this discussion. If you want me to declare my conscience and motivations for doing what I'm doing on Wiki, I guess this is it.

By the way, Bink, you are really overthinking about my edits. My edits reveal interest in legal proceedings because that is my profession, and I'm keen to share that knowledge and will continue to do so. Indeed, my whole career is about fighting cases, and I get paid for that. If I'm about fighting and winning, I wouldn't be here.

If anyone has actually paid attention to what I actually wrote on Falun Gong: talk, they would realize that my primary interest is actually not so much the substance of the debate, but its process. I seldom say what FG is, or what it is not, what should be said about FG, and what not (in fact, I don't think I ever did). I only want the rampant POV pushing, hostility and ad hominem on that page to stop, because I think process matters and the thoughtful process established by this encyclopedia is something worth preserving.

I'm voicing out against this incident because I think a wrong can be forgiven, but it cannot be ignored or pass unnoticed. Else the wrong will fester and the whole community will devolve into one governed by power rather than rules.

Just two cents from me.HollerithPunchCard (talk)17:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's not forget that we're talking about a highly political organization behindThe Epoch Times here. In fact, conspiracy theories, particularly when they're about global pandemics, fall well within the designation of "dangerous". I wouldn't push it too hard, Hollerith.:bloodofox: (talk)17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That was a bit more than two cents,HollerithPunchCard. I looked up your edits toTalk:Falun Gong, and find your description of them above quite misleading: "By the way, Bink, you are really overthinking about my edits. My edits reveal interest in legal proceedings because that is my profession, and I'm keen to share that knowledge and will continue to do so."..."If anyone has actually paid attention to what I actually wrote on Falun Gong: talk, they would realize that my primary interest is actually not so much the substance of the debate, but its process." OK, I've paid attention to what you actually wrote, and it's not even a little about process AFAICS. What I see atTalk:Falun Gong is experienced editors trying to explain to you about reliable sources, while you insist that you understand WP policies better than they do. First you demand a 'formal retraction' from Bloodofox, throwingWP:ASPERSIONS,WP:PERSONALATTACKS, andWP:GOODFAITH at them, and now here you are at Binksternet's page demanding apologies for having been called an "adherent" (something which your first posts toTalk:Falun Gong certainly makes look exceedingly likely). I think you'd do better here with less aggression. We're all used to the "vigorous attacks" ofWP:COI editors against those who point out their COI, asDeepfriedokra says, so, if you're not one, it would be more sensible to not act so much like one.Bishonen |tålk11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC).

We've circled back to my original post. Perhaps, HollerithPunchCard, I' was not misreading you? I will also observe that you seem to have mischaracterized the comments of others. I believe you added the incredibly pejorative "shrill" to the discussion. If I'm correct, I think you are the one who needs to apologise.Bishonen, do you see anything here that will require the use ofthe tools? --Deepfriedokra(talk)

Not yet. Er,Fryup you've got a typo in "shill".Bishonen |tålk12:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC).

I thank you for your interest in this matter, and I think I know where you are coming from. Perhaps, I erred by assuming that you know everything about what is going on with Falun Gong. I urge you to start by reading the recent judgement [[14]] by the People's Tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, a lead prosecutor of the ICTY. The judgement finds that forced organ harvesting has been taking place against this group on significant scale for significant time. It also concludes that the associated acts amount to crime against humanity, although genocide is debatable.

I am very sensitive to this topic because I'm familiar with the cycles of genocide in the recent centuries-that knowledge leads to an understanding that there is an immense human cost to what we say on subjects like the FG. There is an inherent narratability to subject matters like the FG, which, by its novelty and complexity, defies easy description. And what narrative we choose sometimes seals the fate of the victims, we saw this relationship between speech and violence in the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. One frequent way to demonize the victims is to accuse them of conspiracy. This is a common theme in all these human tragedies, because it is a way to attribute danger to the victim community, when danger is not otherwise apparent. That is what led to my first post [[15]], and what led me to engage in this community in the first place.

This does not exempt the FG topic from fair scrutiny and standards of truth, but it does make falsehood more costly. In a way the WP policies are good safeguards. However, I see those policies frequently being violated, and discussions devolving in ad hominem attacks. Any editors whose contributions tend to reflect remote sympathy to the FG community are discredited, by a small group of editors, for imagined association with the FG. I am a prime example. I don't believe in blowing puffery to FG simply because they are being persecuted. But I do believe that a civil and rational discourse on this topic is all the more necessary because of the interests and human costs at stake. This is my concern with process, and that is what led me to make the second post: [[16]]

On my first day, after my very first post, I was labelled as a SPA, I believe by Bloodofox. After my second substantive post, Blink suggests that I am trying to "fool" other people about my identity. I was also accused of being hypocritical, and making emotional propaganda. Propaganda is a loaded word that suggests that I'm essentially a mouthpiece of some hidden power. Finally, in response to my most recent contribution, Bloodofox announced to other editors that my views mirror what was being said by what I believe is a FG affiliated website. The meaning of this post, in the context of the broader FGphobic environment that characterizes the bulk of the discussions on FG Talk, is clear to me. And then, Blink placed the last straw, by announcing that I'm a FG adherent parroting the official views of the group.

In hindsight, I was hasty in making my contributions. I erred by assuming a state of knowledge that does not exist. But I invite you to take a deep breath and try to digest what I say, and try to understand what is going on at FG:talk in its entirely. Then, I suspect that you will not see what I said as heresyHollerithPunchCard (talk)12:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding and I'm sorry if I seemed like an asshole, there's just more than enough sources that decides that band's genre across their main article (and otherwise) and calling them "death metal" more or less would be a meme due to the absurdity of the statement (I know that's not really how WP does its thing, but I can assure you if I didn't come insomeone else was going to). I can see your activities are more about just improving the site in its music corners as much as you can. Respect for thatSecond Skin (talk)10:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the openness. Cheers!Binksternet (talk)12:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Eight years!

Nice to remember you saying "It's a team effort" back then. I disagree with what you told Niggle (FvS), - perhaps we can talk about it some day. It explained a lot to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk)08:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What a sweetie! Thank you muchly for the gem. Perhaps we can discuss the verboten issue some day over a glass of eiswein or Schultheiß, whichever floats your boat.Binksternet (talk)08:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I like Riesling ;) - As meetings areso difficult this year (look for virtual meeting places pictured, one above vineyards), I try right here. My goal is that the issue is no longer verboten, but just handled like normal editing. Someone changes an article (in whatever direction), is reverted, and follows BRD, - could be so simple, no? - I was late to the socalled wars (2012) and have no idea what made people enemies over a feature that simply tries to add a level of accessibility to an article, as images and tables do. My approach: before I add an infobox to an article I (normally, failed sometimes to remember ...) check the article history, and when I see one of a few well-known names, refrain at once, - I want to see them happy. If I don't see one of these names, I add, and when reverted, go away. Again, could be so easy, no? I work a lot on biographies of people who recently died,yesterday,today (not even begun). Thelist is here. Most articles came with an infobox, I added some (one yesterday), and (only) two were reverted, one because I had failed to look (and then discussed, in 2019 that was), the other because I had looked but seen the name only for minor edits, - and I walked away then, shaking head, though ;) -No problem for all others! If the infobox wars ever existed, I believe they are over, or at least could be over if everybody tried to avoid provocation. The world really has bigger problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news:From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles:Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review:Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed:Nick-D on diversity and military history

I would be happy to find a neutral place of mutual agreement and understanding. I feel that the controversy surrounding a person's legacy is best left for the section titled "controversy." I feel strongly that the opening introduction of a person's life and legacy should not include references to sexual misdeeds, especially since accusations were publicly made years following his death, and that there was no trial by which he could defend himself against these allegations. Nowhere am I stating that the allegations are false. I am strictly addressing the propriety of bringing these allegations up in the opening paragraph, being that they are already raised under the section called "controversy."In view of the above, I am prepared to drop my editorial changes that "after his death many discoveries of discreet acts of Hesed and Tzedakah were found which literally have saved many lives." In return I simply ask that allegations not proven in a court of law not be inserted in the opening introduction. If they were proven in a court of law I would have no issue. Otherwise, they should remain solely under "controversy." I believe that I am proposing a very fair resolution. Thank you.Whatdoweknow (talk)21:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article layout and composition style guidelines tell us that the lead section is a summary of important points found in the article body text. SeeWP:LEAD. That means a certain amount of repetition is unavoidable.

In the #MeToo era, sexual misdeeds are of critical importance to the reader. It's not a good idea to hide them. Many great figures have been reduced in stature by media discussion of their sexual misdeeds, and Shlomo is not immune to this.

At the style guidelineWP:CSECTION, we are instructed to integrate negative and positive elements into the same section about the topic. Biographies generally should not round up all the negative material and push it into its own ghetto. Don't take part in such an effort.Binksternet (talk)21:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Let me talk about my first edit ( I wasn't signed in at the time of the edit), you said it was below neutral meaning Very biased, where I said anything allying myself to his view I don't know, but what I do know is that I only said that heclaimed it was a ritual not thatit was. And how you replied to my latest edit sounded pretty biased by saying "idiot who claims idiotic stuff". Calling someone and what they thinkidiotic is anopinion of what you think of someone and their ideologies. And disproving what he said as false is also a biased opinion, neither you or I know exactly what goes on in there because of how high it's restricted, So who knows, maybe he did see a ritual, maybe he mistook the Cremation of Care production, we can't rule out the possibility without having been there to see what happened. And lastly is a conspiracy not a controversy? I get that it was mentioned before but Satanic rituals is a pretty big deal don't you think? And it hasn't been proven true so it won't damage the place's reputation if that's what this is about. Please tell me what you think.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBob Ross Lives (talk •contribs)

I was calling Alex Jones an idiot making idiotic claims.

I was there working the show as an audio engineer, so I know what was going on. Basically a bunch of half-drunk rich guys letting off steam, using old English myth as the basis. Druids and Stonehenge and fairies. Nothing at all Satanic about it. And theCremation of Care ritual is published... Alex Jones could have read the words himself but he didn't, or he chose to ignore them and make up his own version. Which is idiotic.Binksternet (talk)01:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Now I understand what you mean, thank you for bringing that to my attention and have a nice rest of your day. :D— Precedingunsigned comment added by96.8.253.144 (talk)03:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedJohn Robinson (drummer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDavid Benoit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

RegardingStonkaments's talk page edit war. Feel free to ignore or pile on at your leisure.Ian.thomson (talk)03:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Why are you reverting all of my edits?Henry Kinley (talk)22:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Because they aregenre-warring changes unsupported by references.Binksternet (talk)22:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And because you continued the genre-warring behavior of Brazilian IPSpecial:Contributions/191.177.182.156. You would not want to violateWP:MULTIPLE, it gets people blocked.Binksternet (talk)22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed that the article it's not impressive, but it has citations and some important information for the song. But it meetsWP:Nsongs.Unkownsolidier (talk)12:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You have recently engaged in POV editing and have a shown bold disregard for logic and WP policies such asWP:NPOV,WP:BLP,WP:SOAP on pages such asPersecution of Falun Gong,Li Hongzhi, etc. Also, I advise you to apply politeness and prudence while talking to other editors, as well as contributing to productive talk page discussions instead of pushing your POV.--Thomas Meng (talk)23:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Roger Hodgson wrote the song, not Rick Davies, and the original credits were incorrect. Roger’s own website even confirms it and I am not intending to engage in edit wars, but rather, correct the mistake.Roger himself made it known in a Melody Maker interview from 1979 that it was his song.202.53.51.56 (talk)02:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what Hodgson thinks about the issue. He's not the final word on it, though. Uninvolved parties would have to weigh in on the issue.Binksternet (talk)03:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Your last edit on the pageEarth, Wind & Fire was truly ridiculous. Maurice White was the founder and leader of EWF. As such his accomplishments during the band's hiatus is truly noteworthy just as the accomplishments of those other band members who rejoined when the band reconvened. Why would his accomplishments during such be termed off-topic by you? Can you please clarify and explain. An utterly nonsencial edit and also an example ofVandalism byBinksternet.Wioaw (talk)15:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, obviously. I thinkthe material I removed was substantially off-topic, violatingWP:COATRACK, in an article that's already too large. When I'm trying to improve an article by making it more readable, that's not vandalism.Binksternet (talk)15:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest inFalun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guerillero |Parlez Moi20:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

On28 July 2020,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleLady Tambourine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that videos ofLady Tambourine(pictured) playing thetambourine at Southern Louisiana football games went viral in 2017? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Lady Tambourine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,Lady Tambourine), and it may be added tothe statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

— Maile (talk)00:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

All discussions take place in the privacy of the OTRS system and any comments you would like to make should go directly to the ticket in question if you are included in the thread. Please be aware there are no deadlines and everyone is a volunteer, so please be patient. All I can tell you is that follow up has been made and instructions have been given on how to get this image verified.ww2censor (talk)14:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission ofBack in the High Life at theDid You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) atyour nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!Yoninah (talk)14:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination.Yoninah (talk)18:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleBack in the High Life you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofRitchie333 --Ritchie333 (talk)22:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP range is obviously a genre warring. Can you revert its edit and keep an eye on them?113.210.121.42 (talk)02:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.:bloodofox: (talk)05:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind explaining the circumstances around how you came to createRob Shanahan? Was anything off-wiki involved? ThanksSmartSE (talk)08:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind,Smartse.

I was writing the biography ofJohn Robinson (drummer) and I sent Robinson an email to see whether he would help make the biography look better by donating photographs from his collection. Robinson responded positively, and supplied some photographs, each one taken by a different photographer. I uploaded the photographs to Commons and contacted each of the photographers, to ask them to donate the photo by sending OTRS permission to Commons. One of these photographers was Rob Shanahan, who communicated by email that he would like me to write his biography on Wikipedia. I looked at the possibility, studying whether there was enough material forWP:GNG, and decided I would do it. I saw his biography had been deleted three times over the years, and I could easily guess why: adraft of the article remaining in someone's user space looked very promotional, and didn't mention thePlaygirl cover. I knew I could put together a neutral biography, without all the promotion, and so I did. Shanahan supplied a couple of photos for the effort. But now that he sees the results, Shanahan is mad at me because of thePlaygirl mention.Binksternet (talk)15:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The reason I was asking is that someone had pointed me to an advert posted onUpwork a month ago where Shanahan was requested an article be created for pay. It seemed pretty unlikely that you would be taking jobs from there, but at the same time, the sequence of events looks very similar to what we see from throwaway accounts. Your explanation seems much more likely, but I hope you don't mind me having asked. Isn't it a good thing to be inPlaygirl?!SmartSE (talk)17:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ha! I should think thePlaygirl shoot would add some interesting flavor to the reputation and fame of a rock photographer, but I am betting that Shanahan would rather not answer questions about it during every subsequent interview. I'm sure he would rather have his reputation as a photographer stand on its own merits. And I can see that he has never leveraged thePlaygirl shoot in his work, so the concern is valid.Binksternet (talk)17:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The articleBack in the High Life you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:Back in the High Life for issues which need to be addressed.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofRitchie333 --Ritchie333 (talk)22:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

On 28 July 2020 you reverted my 28 July 2020 contribution on the British Invasion

"Indeed, Motown had twenty number one hits on the Hot 100, more than any other record company had, during the 1960s."^[1]

with the explanation "got the numbers fumbled". How so? During the 1960s, The Marvelettes had one, Stevie Wonder had one, Mary Wells had one, (Diana Ross and) The Supremes had twelve, The Temptations had two, Four Tops had two, Marvin Gaye had one, for a total of twenty.98.149.97.245 (talk)23:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think that was the issue; rather Binksternet was concerned about a good and accurate citation (seeWikipedia:Citing sources) so we can all easy double-check what you said is true and accurate, and the claim "more than any other record company had" is demonstrably correct.Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)23:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The first problem I have is that you frequently cite Casey Kasem, who at any time may have been exaggerating for effect on his radio show. You should be citing sources that show their work.

The second problem is that Capitol had at least 20 number 1 hits in the 1960s, same as Motown."The most successful record company of the 1960s was the British EMI with its US-subsidiary Capitol Records." Motown might pull ahead if 1970 is considered the final year of the 1960s, which is how some people classify it. 1970 was Motown's best year on the Hot 100, with seven number 1s.[17] In any case, we should be working with better sources than Casey Kasem.Binksternet (talk)23:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The articleBack in the High Life you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Back in the High Life for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as abold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you cannominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofRitchie333 --Ritchie333 (talk)19:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Best –Binksternet (talk)20:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a note...User:Trav k3llman90 might be another sock, based on his name and edits toUser:Yungtravie favorite articleSanchez (singer).Chubbles (talk)22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the lists of artists foracid jazz andnu jazz, per the MOS. That guideline (no artist lists in music genre articles) seems to be inconsistently applied; for example,techno and its subgenres. What criteria do you use to decide whether or not to remove these lists?ZFT (talk)05:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The criteria is whether I see it or not. I haven't been searching all the genre articles.

Ideally, someone will make an article called List of xx artists to contain the deleted entries for each genre. Anyone is welcome to do so.Binksternet (talk)06:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Binksternet.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.